A) Importance of the landscape/seascape/indigenous territory for biodiversity, with additional consideration to climate benefits.
1. Is the proposed territory/landscape/seascape a globally important area for biodiversity?
Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: Importance of Congo Basin forest from a global BD and Climate change perspectives - and so importance of conserving such forests with the people who use them - whether in a PA or not
Evidence B:The Salonga is a area of paramount importance in the Cuvette Centrale in DRC for the conservation of biodiversity and the maintenance of essential ecosystem service.
2. Is the area important for climate mitigation?
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: 0
Evidence B:Salonga National Park covers 36,000 sq km and is largely covered with forest and freshwater ecosystems.
B) Geographical focus in an area under IPLC governance.
3. Is the area held and managed by IPLC under community-based governance systems?
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: There are strong IPLC governance systems under customary rights. But many of these rights have been eroded by the State, Private sector. Many NPs were gazetted in such lands - and Salonga NP is one - but this offers strong co-management opportunities
Evidence B:IPLC are marginally present in the context of the management of the national resources of the Salonga area.
4. Does the proposal explain the unique cultural significance of the area to IPLCs?
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: The IPLCs in the Congo Basin are hugely important for the long term sustainable management. State management tends to be more extractive (esp Timber). Such a GEF project can really raise the importance and make the case stronger for both IPLC management and for Co-management (esp where there are NPs
Evidence B:The cultural significance is described in broad terms and no specific elements of the cultural identity or uniqueness of the area is provided.
C) Vulnerability of the proposed IPLCs as well as their lands/waters/natural resources to threats.
5. Is the area vulnerable to threats/current risk of negative impacts to IPLC and biodiversity without action?
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: Logging, Logging and associated wildlife trade - primarily driven by Private sector and state - few or no benefits to local people. Also Oil. But I dont know how a project of this nature can take on Timber/Oil industry without huge advocacy support from GEF etc.
There is some "illegal fishing going on - but not clear whether that is under IPLC conditions or as part of commercial - and so - illegal fishing effort
Evidence B:Threats affecting or likely to affect in the future the integrity of the natural ecosystems of Salonga are clearly described. Logging and oil exploration and oil exploitation are described as the main threats, but they have not yet materialized. Illegal hunting is described as rampant as well as illicit and unsustainable fishing activities.
D) Opportunities for ICI results - including enabling policy conditions, positive government support and presence of successful IPLC-led conservation initiatives that could be scaled up.
6. Are enabling policy conditions in place for IPLC-led conservation in the proposed area?
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: Rights recognized in rhetoric - but not when such rights come up against powerful timber, oil industry and the state. As a result - seems to be no community initiatives
Desire to gazette many more PAs - but key will be how they will be co-managed with local and IPs. This project could be a great opp to show how ICCAs can raise PAs to 15%
Evidence B:The legislation of the DRC has a provision for the management of natural resources by IPLC. IPLC are very marginally involved in the management of Salonga NP.
7. Is there active government support for IPLC-led conservation in the proposed country/area?
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: Not sure if what is written is really about IPLC conservation or about attaining more State land as NPs. My worry is State Rhetoric on IPLCs yet not implementing such policy in practice - and still more NPs under distant State management
Evidence B:Despite the existence of a legislation in the DRC allowing the management of natural resources by IPLC the implementation is very limited. The proponent does not indicate that ICCN is moving in the direction of a co-management of Salonga with the IPLC.
8. Are there successful IPLC-led conservation initiatives in the proposed area that provide a foundation for scaling up?
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: Few implemented - usually pilot (so able to access donor funds). There is enough evidence that IPLC works (if given the rights and resps) - but the real reluctance in many countries is to implement beyond the pilot
Evidence B:There are a few projects in the area benefiting IPLC but none seem to be led by IPLC.
E) Synergies with existing investments.
9. Are there other initiatives (relevant projects) that provide complementary support for IPLC-led conservation in the geography?
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: A number of small projects - which this project should build on, and catalyze into an empowering approach and go beyond pilot and small scale. The real issues are about governance, and who has (or had) rights and resps
Evidence B:There are very few initiatives in the area that provide support to IPLC.
Section 2 - Quality and ability of the proposed approach and interventions to achieve transformational impact that generate the global environmental benefits (Total Points: 40)
A) Quality of proposed approach and ability to support traditional structures, knowledge and community practices in the delivery of global environmental benefits.
1. Is the proposed approach well aligned with the overall objective of the ICI to: Enhance Indigenous Peoples' and Local Communities' (IPLCs) efforts to steward land, waters and natural resources to deliver global environmental benefits?
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: The real focus of this project should be on how IPLCs can take on their rights and responsibilities and have management and ownership rights over their lands. So result 1, 2, 4 and 6 are key. Activities such as surveys (I am sure many have been done), Income generating projects, agroforestry - which are all nice photographic things but are not about governance
Evidence B:The proposed approach does not take into account the need for IPLC to address the current and future threats posed by the logging and oil exploration/exploitation. Instead the proposed project aims at mitigating the threats posed by the illegal hunting and fishing activities of the local communities.
2. Does the EoI present a clear and convincing set of activities and results?
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: EoI cries out for supporting IPLC governance; yet too many of the activities are about agroforestry, socio-econ activities. If this proposal is really worked on, it could be an important process for IPLC
Evidence B:The proposed activities are not focusing on the need for the ILPC to engage in the management of the natural of Salonga. The proposed activities may benefit marginally IPLC.
3. Will the project (objectives and activities) contribute to overcoming identified threats and putting in place necessary enabling opportunities for IPLC-led conservation?
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: Too much in improving livelihoods (agroforestry, improve farming practise) - only really Obj 4 that addresses the key issues
Evidence B:The activities of the projects are dedicated to address secondary threats and ignore the main ones. There is no plan to engage IPLC to prevent further logging an oil exploration and exploitation to affect Salonga.
4. Are the activities achievable within a $500,000 to $2,000,000 USD budget range in a period of 5 years of project execution?
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: But missing on IPLC aspects in terms of ICCAs that are respected, recongized and owned - and to reduce focus on state owned NPs
Evidence B:The activities proposed are partially aligned but do not address the main threats affecting the integrity of Salonga.
5. Does the EoI include significant and concrete sources of co-financing?
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: some identified in Q6, 7 - more in Q18 - this all argues for a strong integrated approach to governance in this geography (and probably more generally in DRC)
Evidence B:Very few projects implemented in the region of Salonga could constitute a concrete source of financing.
B) Potential of the proposed activities to achieve IPLC-led transformational impact that generate global environmental benefits.
6. Are the estimated Global Environmental Benefits (GEF core indicators) substantial and realistic?
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: table not filled in
Evidence B:Section 12 not completed by the proponent
7. Are the additional cultural and livelihoods results contributing to project objectives?
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: Q13 not answered - but there is quite a bit on this in other sections
Evidence B:Section 13 not completed by the proponent
8. Does the EoI provide a clear and robust vision for long-term sustainability?
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: Importance of working with local grass roots orgs, and youth organizations (which is great - as they are the future of conservation). Quite a lot of focus on capacity building - which is good, but capacity building for what is the real important issue
Evidence B:There is no clear nor robust vision for long-term sustainability.
C) IPLC-led conservation that advances national and global environmental priorities.
9. Does the EoI build on and contribute to national priorities as defined in NBSAPs and/or NDCs?
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: Seems to be and also deals with threats to PAs (but some of the threats identified are IPLCs and their rights to PA land! They point out the importance of participatory managed - but actually needs to be more - participatory, clear rights and associated responsibilities, clear ownership or co-management ownership
Evidence B:Salonga is such an important protected areas that any attempts to improve its conservation and management are considered a contribution to the advancement of the NBSAP. However the proposed project lacks the dimension of the engagement of IPLC in the management of the resources.
D) Demonstrated gender mainstreaming in all activities.
10. Does the EoI provide a clear and robust approach to gender mainstreaming?
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: Weak - gender needs to be an important issue as men/women use Envr differently and has to understand different uses, and “whose power counts”. that said there is some gender capacity building in the EoI (see other Qs)
Evidence B:Only generalities regarding gender issues are provided. No clear approach is formulated.
E) Innovation and potential to scale up.
11. Do the proposed activities and results demonstrate innovation and potential for transformative results at scale?
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: Could be much greater - testing co-management, IPLC governance arrangements - and then other co-benefits (Carbon, A/F, livelihood activities can support. Could catalyze a larger movement in the area for such management systems
Evidence B:The project does not propose any innovation and does not have a potential for scaling up.
Section 3 - Qualifications and experience of the Organization (Total Points: 30)
A) Indigenous Peoples or Local Community organization legally recognized under national laws.
1. Is the EoI led by an IPLC organization?
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: Difficult to say from the EoI - but certainly seems to be partnership (e.g. with Batwa groups) with IPLCs
Evidence B:The project is led by a North Kivu based NGO. The proponent indicates that collaboration with IPLC groups will be established, but their roles are not defined. IPLC are largely described as beneficiaries and not actors of the project.
B) Demonstrated on the ground leadership related to Indigenous Peoples and/or Local Community Conservation.
2. Does the lead proponent demonstrate on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work?
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: Seems clear that IDPE has considerable experience in the area - though some of it very traditional conservation-livelihood stuff - much less on governance and real IPLC work - that would be an area for capacity building
Evidence B:The proponent has some on the ground leadership experience, but it is not clear from the project proposal if this experience is sufficient to engage in a meaningful way with IPLC groups of Salonga.
C) Proven relevant experience in working with IPLC networks, alliances and organizations/ strength of partnerships on the ground.
3. Does EoI demonstrate that the lead proponent has strong partnerships, particularly with other IPLC organizations, to carry out the work?
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: 4 partners listed - I think at least two are IPLC. but the roles still remain somewhat traditional (awareness raising, improved fishery management etc.)
Evidence B:The proponent has experience in working with IPLC but it is not clear if this experience is relevant to and sufficient for leading successfully a project in Salonga.
D) Technical expertise and capacity to address environmental problems, root causes and barriers.
4. Does EoI demonstrate technical capacity of lead proponent and partners to deliver the proposed results?
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: Gaps mainly in the areas of improving governance
Evidence B:The information is not available in the Eol to assess this capacity.
E) Project Management capacity.
5. Does the EoI demonstrate project & financial management capacity needed for scale of proposed effort?
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: No GEF (or SGP) exp. - but does seem to have relevant management experience for such projects
Evidence B:The Eol does not describe precisely the financial and administrative of the organization.
6. Does lead organization have experience with safeguards and other standards required by GEF?
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: Not clear
Evidence B:No GEF experience